News

The government likes to tell the public how awful marijuana is and how there are so many dangers associated with it. As more people discover the wonders associated with the cannabis plant, the government is slowly loosing control over what the general public believes about marijuana. Unfortunately for the governments minions, their lies aren't even passable with the knowledge that people possess today. According to an article posted by Chris Blakely, the following are eight lies that the White House is telling about marijuana.

1. "The downward trend in youth marijuana use during the late 1990s has ended... Not surprisingly, this increase coincides with a softening of youth attitudes about the risks of marijuana."

While in the 1990s, there were tons of scare tactics being released about how "dangerous" weed was. So of course it would make sense that marijuana use was on the decline. These days, marijuana is making a huge impact on the youth of today, making it extremely difficult for the government to lie to people about the negative effects of marijuana.

2. "Proposals such as legalization that would promote marijuana use are inconsistent with this public health and safety approach."

It is the belief of many that by legalizing marijuana, the world would be a safer place and people would be healthier. Cannabis leads people to a healthier lifestyle. Plus, there would be a large amount of crime that would be eliminated if the plant was to become illegal. Whatever approach the White House is taking obviously isn't working.

3. "Legalization would lower the price, thereby increasing use."

Even if the price of marijuana changed, legalization probably would not effect the number of smokers. People smoke. It's illegal is most states and people in those states are still smoking. Legalization would at least keep marijuana "criminals" out of jail, leaving room for people who commit real crimes. Marijuana use will increase because of the facts, if anything. As people learn what the plant can do for personal health, it is believed that more people will begin to smoke as more information is released.

4. "And because drug use is sensitive to price, especially by young people, higher prices help keep use rates low."

This is completely untrue. If the price of marijuana gets too high, the users will result to the alternative; growing their own. Some states have extravagant marijuana prices, yet the number of marijuana smokers rises every year. When people believe in something as powerful as cannabis, there's not a whole lot that the government is going to be able to say to change their minds.

5. "Marijuana can cause distorted perceptions, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory."

Or marijuana makes some people able to function and go about their daily lives? If the government is still in this mind set, then they're way farther behind the rest of us than previously thought. Marijuana helps people. It's unsure how or why the government doesn't understand this concept yet.

6. "Our experiences with even tightly regulated prescription drugs, such as oxycontin, shows that legalizing drugs widens availability and misuse, even when controls are in place."

Comparing marijuana to oxycontin is insulting. Considering that prescription pills are one of the most commonly abused drugs and no one has ever died from a marijuana overdose, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense that these two substances could even be considered to be the same. Seriously, this argument is just sad.

7. "Legalization would further burden the criminal justice system."

Burden the system? How many people are in jail for nonviolent marijuana related crimes? Too many. While basically innocent people are fined and put in prison for just possessing a plant, real criminals run rampant. By making marijuana illegal, not only will the jails be freed up, but police forces could turn their attention to much more important matters.

8. "Tax revenue would be offset by higher social costs."

Taxpayers shell out so much money in order to keep the prisoners of nonviolent marijuana crimes locked up. By releasing those in prison for the crime of possessing a plant, there would be 60% less convicts for the taxpayers to pay for.

The government lies. We realize that. But to say such annoyingly false statements as legitimate arguments just shows that the government either isn't paying attention the marijuana industry or they're just terribly uneducated. If they won't listen to the real facts that come from scientists and studies from professors, what can we do other than shake our heads at their meager attempts to discourage legalization? Whether or not the government likes it, marijuana will be legal. Either every state will legalize the plant like Colorado and Washington and the federal government won't be able to keep up or the government will have no choice but to legalize the plant.

Hopefully, we see the day where people no longer get prosecuted for marijuana use and possession. The efforts put forth by activists has come a long way from the days of the hippies. With facts to back us up, anti-drugs activists and the government are just running out of ideas to combat us.

BEFORE LONG, smoking a joint in the nation’s capital might get you in even less trouble than parking on the wrong side of the street on street-cleaning day.

Ten of 13 members of the D.C. Council and Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D) have endorsed a plan to make small-time marijuana possession a civil rather than a criminal offense. That means recreational cannabis users wouldn’t face arrest, charges or jail time — any of which can destroy their lives — as long as they aren’t caught with more than an ounce of the drug. Instead, they would have to pay a fine, perhaps as low as $25. (The mayor also wants criminal penalties to remain for anyone caught using it in public.)

Much of the debate over the idea has focused on an American Civil Liberties Union report that suggests that the District and many other jurisdictions enforce their anti-marijuana laws unfairly, disproportionately arresting African American suspects. On these pages, Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier pushed back, insisting that factors such as a geographic concentration of tips about marijuana users, not biased policing, are responsible for the city’s arrest figures.

That debate does not need to be resolved to conclude that maintaining criminal penalties for small-time users of any race doesn’t make sense.

In a move that seems unfair to say the least, Intuit is not advancing NORML to the third round of it’s Super Bowl Ad Contest. NORML received a ton of media coverage after it won first place in round one of the contest. One would think that taking first place in the first round, and the media love that ensued, would ensure that NORML would at least make it to the top 20 overall contestants for round 3, but sadly, that wasn’t the case.

Marijuana is more popular than just about anything right now, and it would have been a great thing to see a marijuana Super Bowl ad. Below is NORML’s reaction to the news. I encourage all TWB readers to tweet and post Facebook messages directed at Intuit:

Today, Intuit announced the 20 finalists who moved on to Round 3 of their “Small Business, Big Game” contest. Despite finishing first in the initial round of public voting (Intuit removed the ability to sort by vote popularity during the second round) and generating hundreds of media hits through Round 2, Intuit, for reasons not communicated to NORML, decided not to advance our entry to the latest round in the contest.

(NOTE: Intuit had opened the contest up to non-profit organizations, which NORML is. We also met their requirements in both staff and budget for being a “small business”)

“It is unfortunate that Intuit seems to be relying more on outdated political values instead of overwhelming public opinion when it comes to selecting which entries advanced in their contest,” noted NORML Communications Director Erik Altieri, “As demonstrated by the outpouring of support and positive media coverage for our entry, the country was ready and eager to see an ad for sensible marijuana law reforms during the most watched TV program of the year. This could’ve been a win for all groups involved, but instead Intuit will likely have only generated ill will for itself amongst the 58% of Americans who now support ending our country’s war on marijuana.”

I just read a very disturbing story out of Indiana. It appears that a fifth grade boy was bitten by a police dog while the police were conducting a mock classroom drug raid. Does anyone else find it ridiculous that fifth graders were used to show how a K-9 officer can find drugs? Even if a kid didn’t get bitten, this is ridiculous. The fact that an innocent kid was bitten in the process is just sad.

According to the Brazil Times:

According to the report, the officer and his K-9 partner, Max, as well as another K-9 team were requested by Clay County Superior Court Judge J. Blaine Akers to carry out a simulated raid of a party with actors in place to help “educate the Clay County fifth-graders on drug awareness.”

So a judge is sitting in his courtroom and one day thinks, ‘You know what would be a good way to educate the public about drug use? Have a bunch of innocent children line up, have an officer place drugs on one of them, and see if a drug dog can find which one has the drugs.’ Are there that many drug raids in classrooms in Indiana? How is this demonstration helpful to anyone? Shame on Judge Akers, I hope he feels like a total A-hole, and I also hope he is removed from his position.

One of the craziest things about this story is according to the media report I previously linked to, “Four scenarios were carried out that day with the incident occurring during the third scenario.” So a kid gets bitten by a dog, totally botching the demonstration and physically hurting a kid, but the show goes on for a fourth scenario? I absolutely hope that the family sues the judge and the police.

The War On Drugs has been going on for far too long at this point at the expense of the taxpayers. From tearing families apart to hurting innocent bystanders, the war has been sucking economies dry all over the world. When the efforts that go in to a raid are thought of, how is it even justifiable? Government agencies spend millions of dollars to raid one grow operation, where the marijuana that is confiscated doesn't even hold the same amount of street value. Is shutting down marijuana grows really worth losing money? New Zealand doesn't seem to think so.

The Global Commission on Drug Policy have found that the War On Drugs has accomplished... Well.. Nothing. They stated that the war failed to achieve any of the objectives that it was supposed to. In New Zealand, the use of drugs is on the rise, while taxpayers shell out $400 million every year to enforce a prohibition that clearly isn't working. Since marijuana actually isn't a drain on the economy (the war on drugs is the real drain), the government in NZ is rethinking it's stand.

Julian Crawford, the leader of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, says that "a far more effective way to undermine the black market would be to regulate and tax the cannabis trade". Finally! Leaders are starting to realize the more positive ways of using cannabis to their countries benefits, rather than using methods that hurt the citizens and government alike. Crawford goes on to say that there are innocent cannabis users that are being prosecuted and having their medicine stolen by the government. While cops are around to "protect and serve", they're definitely not protecting sick citizens.

New Zealand will hold a Party Vote for the ALCP, to reassure the fact that the war on drugs has failed it's mission. While a vote may just be a formality, it is an awesome thought that leaders are beginning to take note of how negatively the cannabis prohibition effects the citizens. The government needs to think of the needs of the people. Greed and corruption are unfortunately the blinders that come with every politician. But once a few leaders realize, others will follow. The truth can't be denied for long!

Editor's note: Dan Riffle is a former assistant prosecutor and the director of federal policies at the Marijuana Policy Project, the primary financial backer of the 2012 campaign to regulate marijuana in Colorado.

(CNN) -- Anti-marijuana crusaders like Kevin Sabet, while well-intentioned, are promoting policies that lead to more violence and disease in our society. In his recent CNN.com op-ed, Sabet argues we should keep marijuana illegal. But as long as marijuana remains illegal, profits from sales go to criminals and drug cartels, and adults will continue to be punished for using a substance less harmful than currently legal drugs.

Confused? Let's back up. For more than 80 years, our government has spent tens of billions of taxpayer dollars fighting a war against marijuana. We arrest three-quarters of a million adults every year, 87% for simple possession rather than production or sales of marijuana. Courtrooms turn into assembly lines churning out probationers -- mostly minorities -- with convictions that will make it virtually impossible to find employment.

The result? Marijuana is universally available, used by almost half of Americans at some point in their lives, and we've enriched murderous drug cartels fueling violence in Mexico that has claimed more than 60,000 lives.

Of course, we've been down this road before. During alcohol prohibition in the 1930s, federal agents raided speakeasies and busted barrels of illegally produced and imported booze. Meanwhile, bootleggers made money hand over fist, empowering criminals like Al Capone to turn Chicago into an urban war zone. And much like with marijuana today, even under alcohol prohibition most Americans who wanted a drink had no problem finding one.

Today, marijuana prohibition has proven itself just as disastrous a public policy failure as alcohol prohibition before it. Yet despite all the obvious similarities between the two, there's one key difference: Marijuana is dramatically safer than alcohol.